“Then And loudness is the new thing.”

“Then we became
creative directors so we have to create but mostly direct. And now we have to
become image-makers, creating a buzz, making sure it looks good in the
pictures. The screen has to scream, baby- that’s a rule. And loudness is the
new thing.” Alber Elbaz

When people
generally hear loudness, they look for its source. This is almost agreed that the
loudness attracts the attraction of people like a light spot in darkness,
However we need to question this point and know whether this is Art?  When something new is created, is the mere
existence of our creation an strong enough reason to convince us to call what
we made as an artistic work? And can we use the innovation as a criterion for
our ultimate evaluation?

As Art has
frequently had qualitative and quantitative changes during the history, nobody
can rejects the fact that Art is a show which presents frequent alternations which
can be obviously seen in museums. In other words, discussing Art development at
the first step refers to discussing Art innovations, because without original
thoughts Art developments cannot be explained. To be more specific, innovations
in Art are being renewed in fundamental characteristics of expression style for
an artist. However, these characteristics are not always an indication of Art
progresses, especially the innovations appear in decline eras of Art.

To my way of
thinking, the innovation is a result of the quantitative change of Art while
evolution in quality of Art leads to Art development. Merely focusing on
quantitative variations brings about forgetting the qualitative metamorphosis
of Art which are exactly the most important part of Art development. The real
development is not the result of new and numerous details that we can see every
day and in order to achieve that, in the Art of all nations, we have to search
some items that enrich the quality of Art.

artistic changes occur in two forms, evolutionary and revolutionary.
Presentation of every new quality is not an essential revolution in innovation
or major reconstruction of Art. On the other hand, Art development is not
always the result of revolutionary mutation. In fact, it is agreed to say that
developing Art is created by two items, sometimes by evolution and sometimes by
revolution, and it is clearly wrong to deny one of them because of the other.

Anyway, what is
certainly provable is the point that changing Art, whether evolutionary or
revolutionary, is primary evaluated by the “innovation” criterion. In other
words, generally speaking about development of Art refers to Art innovation, as
mentioned. To more specifically address the point, innovation has a variety of
forms in Art world and sometimes appears as a new interpretation of old
characters by attributing a new context to those old characters. Furthermore, forms
of applying artistic practices can be appeared by innovation, as well.

In my opinion,
the evolutionary development of Art has been accelerated in some eras in which
tendency to innovation brought about fundamental metamorphosis and variations,
and has dramatically impressed all artistic types and scopes. So in this
condition, we confront a perfect era in Art world using new ways in Artistic
creativity. The best example is Renaissance era- scientific, literary, and
Artistic revolution. Anyway, being new and novelty is the very organic
expression of Artistic changes that follows the evolutionary development law,
like every social phenomenon whether want or not.

question, which should be asked in criticism of the quotation, is: “What is the
value of innovation in Art?” Or “In which condition can innovation be recorded
as a development in Art”? In order to answer the question we have to consider
the subject as a more common issue of Artistic development. Because if a set of
single phenomenon, without cause and effect relation, was seen in history of
Art, and we could consider the art work of every artist regardless of his/her
veterans and society in which he/she has been living, there would be no means
for the innovation.

In my view, “the
new” not only does not banish and delete “the old”, but it also stays with and
develops the old, if the context of the old is a truth in every way. It is
completely true that the new reality brings about new art. But this new reality
can affect artistic forms equally and as well as a new life. In art, the real
innovation is what develops the ways, which causes to appear the real
innovation and on the other hand leads to facilitate next stages of evolution.

New forms have
always been the result of artistic attitude to express a new context in art. Great
artists, whose works cause to enrich Art, never completely obey formal
experiences, and the form has been merely a tool for them. In fact, new forms
have to be considered directly related to the contexts. For instance, applying
linear and space perspectives have been led to art development because showing
the real aspect of the life has been so important. So, development in art is
not equal to simple appearance of the new thing that there was no existence
before, but it is a mutation to appearance a new quality.

“New wining” in
general development has not been only limited to the straight effect of its
artistic status. We can compare the new role to a seed that produce a new
fruit. To be more specific, the impact of Impressionisms on the painters of
their era is different, compared to the impact of Impressionism on the present

In conclusion,
I believe fashion design is not a stage to flaunt our talent and our individual
ability. Fashion design is feeling needs. So, a fashion designer needs a deep
vision, anthropology, and sociology. In other words, the creative directors
have to follow the “creating” but do not be an employee merely for “creating”.
Today, there is so much loudness which can be heard in the world. However, do
these screams attract our attention, once again? Hearing a smooth sound among
these buzz, screams and loudness might be more enjoyable and attracts our best

Sincerely yours

Akram DehghaniFilabadi